sparge at gmail.com
Tue Jul 31 18:20:14 UTC 2012
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 July 2012 18:54, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, but (1) shoes probably don't confer an advantage, (2) there are
>> rules governing shoes, and (3) shoes aren't a part of the human body. There
>> need to be rules governing prostheses ensuring they don't provide an
> 1) They do confer an advantage to those running without them
> 2) We are not discussing here whether rules are possible (Indianapolis has
> rules, but cars have no "inborn features"), but whether the concept of
> "natural" is of any guidance on what they should "naturally" be
OK. I think it's a useful concept, you disagree.
> 3) Are prostheses? Where exactly the line is drawn?
Seriously? How about when a body part that contributes to the performance
of a sport is replaced with a man-made replacement?
In the sense that each cell in their body has their DNA and has been part
>> of their body since before they were born and the "modifications" allowed
>> are achieved through natural, biological processes, not a machine shop.
> Let us say that I grow enhanced legs on an athlete after the amputation of
> the old pair, rather than in a vat. Would such process be so much more
> natural than adopting carbon fiber prostheses?
More natural? Sure. Sufficiently natural to allow fair competition with
someone who has their inborn legs? No.
Rather than picking apart my statements and postulating thought experiments
whose point is unclear, how about actually taking a stand on the original
issue? I'll grant that making rules that ensure fair competition is hard
and getting harder, but I still think it's worth doing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat